What about the Rest of Them? Fatal Injuries Related to Production Agriculture Not Captured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI).

Surveillance of injuries in production agriculture is necessary to inform stakeholders about workplace hazards and risks in order to improve and advance injury prevention policies and practices for this dangerous industry. The most comprehensive fatal injury surveillance effort currently in the United States is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), which covers occupational fatalities in all U.S. industries, including production agriculture. However, this surveillance does not include many categories of fatalities that occur during agricultural work or on production agriculture worksites. To better capture the human cost of production agriculture, the authors of this paper call for the collection of additional data with a broader scope that supplements, not replaces, the current CFOI. This paper describes challenges in surveillance, highlights key procedural gaps, and offers recommendations for advancing national surveillance of fatal traumatic injuries associated with production agriculture.

Comparison of agricultural injuries reported in the media and census of fatal occupational injuries.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes annual statistics on occupational injuries and fatalities in the United States. The BLS fatality data include all agricultural workers while the non-fatal injury data only cover hired employees on large farms. In 2012, the Central States Center for Agricultural Safety and Health (CS-CASH) began collecting regional media monitoring data of agricultural injury incidents to augment national statistics. The aims of this report were: a) to compare CS-CASH injury and fatality data collected via print and online sources to data reported in previous studies, and b) to compare fatality data from media monitoring to BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) data. CS-CASH media monitoring data were collected from a news clipping service and an internet detection and notification system. These data covered years 2012-2017 in seven Midwestern states (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota). CS-CASH occupational fatality data were compared with aggregate CFOI data for the region during 2012-2015. Media monitoring captured 1048 injury cases; 586 (56%) were non-fatal and 462 (44%) were fatal. The numbers of occupational fatality cases from media monitoring and CFOI were nearly identical (280 vs. 282, respectively), and the distributions by type of injury were similar. Findings suggest that media monitoring can capture equal numbers of fatalities compared to CFOI. Non-fatal injuries, not captured by national surveillance systems, can be collected and tracked using print and electronic media. Risk factors, identified in media sources, such as gender, age, time, and source of the incident are consistent with previously reported data. Media monitoring can provide timely access to detailed information on individual cases, which is important for detecting unique and emerging hazards, designing interventions and for setting policy and guiding national strategies.

Farm Equipment-Motor Vehicle Crash Prevention Conference (FEMVCPC).

This plenary talk at the eighth annual Midwest Rural Agricultural Safety and Health Forum, November 2009, described a conference held earlier in the year focusing on the hazards and risks associated with moving agricultural equipment on public roads. The Farm Equipment-Motor Vehicle Crash Prevention Conference (FEMVCPC), March 2009, Des Moines, Iowa, drew 54 participants representing 13 states for presentations and discussions. Data showing that over 1100 farm equipment-motor vehicle crashes occur annually in the Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health's nine-state region document agricultural producer stated concerns. The conference format allowed for presentations from a wide range of perspectives and provided discussion time for caucusing at two levels. The first level involved caucus by specialty (e.g., state agencies, sheriff/highway patrol, driver educators, farmers, retailers/manufacturers). The second level caucuses gathered individuals from their respective states to consider what is being done and what could be done relative to each area identified in the first level caucuses. The final product of the conference was a specific action plan each state group would advocate and bring forward in their state. On-site and 6-month follow-up evaluations with each state group indicated that the conference content increased participant knowledge and provided them with new content to use in current and future state programs. As important is the finding that participants have used conference content to foster interest, new collaborations, and specific project planning related to agricultural roadway transportation issues.

Youths operating all-terrain vehicles--implications for safety education.

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) use has increased in recent years. ATV injuries and deaths have also increased, particularly among youth. The authors administered a survey at a National FFA convention to identify safety-related behaviors, injuries, and effects of ATV safety training. There were 624 participants aged 12 to 20 with a median age of 16; 56% were male and 69% lived on a farm. The median age for first riding an ATV was 9. ATV size recommendations were rarely observed; nearly all ATVs operated by youth less than 16 years of age were over 90 cc. Safety-related behaviors were reported as follows: always wearing a helmet (24%), never taking passengers (12%), never riding as a passenger (16%), and never riding on paved road (19%). A small percentage (22%) had participated in ATV safety training; 41% were willing, but 46% said such training was not available. ATV training was positively associated with always wearing a helmet (odds ratio [OR]: 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-2.63), never taking passengers (OR: 2.31, 95% CI: 1.36-3.91), never riding as a passenger (OR: 3.02, 95% CI: 1.90-4.79), and never riding on paved road (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 0.99-2.50). However, training was also associated with an increase in injuries (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.31-2.94), although this effect was not found in multivariable models. It was not known if the injuries occurred before or after the training and no exposure time data were available. Gender differences were found in behaviors and injury rates (males 37%, females 20%). The results suggest ATV safety training improved behaviors. Gender differences in operation, behaviors, and injuries should be considered in training.

Characteristics of crashes with farm equipment that increase potential for injury.

CONTEXT: Crash fatality and injury rates are higher on rural roadways than other roadway types. Although slow-moving farm vehicles and equipment are risk factors on rural roads, little is known about the characteristics of crashes with farm vehicles/equipment. PURPOSE: To describe crashes and injuries for the drivers of farm vehicles/equipment and non-farm vehicles involved in an injury crash. Passengers are not included in this analysis. METHODS: Injury crashes were included that involved a farm vehicle/equipment and at least one non-farm vehicle reported in Iowa Department of Transportation crash data from 1995 to 2004. Odds ratios were calculated through logistic regression to identify increased odds for injury among drivers of non-farm vehicles and farm vehicles/equipment. We examined frequently occurring crash characteristics to identify crash scenarios leading to the highest odds for injury. FINDINGS: Non-farm vehicle drivers were 5.23 times more likely to be injured than farm vehicle/equipment drivers (95% CI = 4.12-6.46). The absence of restraint use was a significant predictor of injury for both farm vehicle/equipment drivers (OR = 2.85; 95% CI = 1.14-7.13) and non-farm vehicle drivers (OR = 2.53; 95% CI = 1.54-4.15). Crash characteristics increasing the odds of injury for non-farm vehicle drivers included speeding, passing the farm vehicle/equipment, driving on a county road, having a frontal impact collision, and crashing in darkness. Ejection was the strongest predictor of injury for the farm vehicle/equipment driver. CONCLUSION: Non-farm vehicle drivers were much more likely to be injured than farm vehicle/equipment drivers, suggesting that farm vehicle/equipment crash prevention should be a priority for all rural road users. Prevention strategies that reduce motor vehicle speed, assist in safe passing, increase seat belt use, and increase conspicuousness of the farm vehicle/equipment are suggested.